California State University, San Bernardino CSUSB ScholarWorks

Theses Digitization Project John M. Pfau Library

2002

Gunsmoke: An investigation of conversational implicature and Guns & Ammo magazine

Kerry Lynn Winn

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/etd-project

Part of the Rhetoric and Composition Commons

Recommended Citation Winn, Kerry Lynn, "Gunsmoke: An investigation of conversational implicature and Guns & Ammo magazine" (2002). Theses Digitization Project. 2069. https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/etd-project/2069

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the John M. Pfau Library at CSUSB ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses Digitization Project by an authorized administrator of CSUSB ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. GUNSMOKE:

AN INVESTIGATION OF CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURE

AND GUNS & AMMO MAGAZINE

A Thesis

Presented to the

Faculty of

California State University,

San Bernardino

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Arts

in

English Composition

by

Kerry Lynn Winn

March 2002 GUNSMOKE:

AN INVESTIGATION OF CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURE

AND GUNS & AMMO MAGAZINE

A Thesis

Presented to the

Faculty of

California State University,

San Bernardino

by

Kerry Lynn Winn

March 2002

Approved by:

Ph . D . , I Chair, Sunny Hyon English Date

Rong Chen, Ph.D. ABSTRACT

In the United States, numerous citizens fear that

their Second Amendment right to bear arms will be

obliterated. One text that discusses this issue is a

popular gun enthusiast's magazine. Guns & Ammo. I will

analyze this magazine's content through linguistics,

particularly Grice's implicature. As a result I hope it

will give me a better viewpoint of the gun community's

perspective regarding firearms. This analysis' will closely

examine the use of implicature in these texts and analyze

if it strengthens the force of the writers' messages. It

may reveal how the use of implicature may widen the chasm

between gun control and Second Amendment rights advocates.

Implicature often will enable writers to dispense vivid

imagery to strengthen a claim; instill fear in or

establish a relationship with an audience; denigrate their

opponents.

Grice's theory of Conversational Implicature will be

applied to Guns & Ammo magazine. This theory incorporates

Grice's Cooperative Principle that in conversation

individuals account for the situation surrounding the

conversation and talk in a manner that will benefit all

engaged parties. This principle incorporates four speech

maxims: Quantity (don't give too much or too little

iii information), Quality (don't be untruthful), Relation (be

relevant) and Manner (be clear). With this application, I

hope to reveal why the contributors violate certain speech

maxims and how these violations may reveal the writers'

ideologies and tendencies in communication, which may

increase the rift between gun enthusiasts and gun control

advocates. I will apply the Gricean framework to six Guns

& Ammo texts: Charlton Heston's January, June, and

December 1999 monthly column "From the Capitol"; Jim

Grover's January and December 1999 monthly column

"Personal Security" and Chuck Klein's December 1999

freelance contribution to the monthly column "Second

Amendment."

This study found that the these three contributors

violate a number of maxims when discussing firearm

regulation with the Quality and Quantity maxims being

violated with the most frequency. These violations depict

a violent world, present a positive image of Second

Amendment rights advocates, and cast a negative light upon

the character and credibility of gun control proponents

and people of color. The resulting implicatures often

suggest that gun control is tantamount to treason; that

you must practice constant vigilance to ensure your

personal security; and that you should fear individuals

iv unlike yourself. The writers may hope their audience will

make these inferences while reading their claims regarding

Second Amendment rights and personal security.

v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

With love for my parents, my son and Royce. I would

like to credit my parents for their financial support

while I pursued my graduate studies. I would like to thank

my son for his unwavering emotional support. I'm grateful

for Royce Patterson's emotional support and viewpoint as a

gun enthusiast. His comments shed much needed insight into

the world of gun enthusiasts.

Finally, I gratefully acknowledge Dr. Sung-Heh Hyon

and Dr. Rong Chen for their patience and support. Sunny

Hyon's quick, discerning suggestions and forbearance made

this research possible. Rong Chen managed to Overcome my

terror of linguistics and encouraged me to pursue this

topic. His insightful critiques and patience in tolerating

my questions in his area of expertise I gratefully and

humbly appreciate. Also, I would like to apologize for any

detrimental effects this project may have had on my

committee's longevity.

vi TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT...... iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... vi

LIST OF TABLES...... ix

CHAPTER ONE: A RETROSPECTIVE ON GUNS & AMMO

MAGAZINE ...... 1

CHAPTER TWO: THE THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL

FRAMEWORK

Herbert Paul Grice...... 14

The Cooperative Principle...... 14

Definitions and Examples of the Quality,

Quantity, Manner and Relation Maxims ...... 15

Flouting the Maxims...... 20

Opting Out of the Maxims...... 21

Previous Applications of Grice ...... 22

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS ...... 26

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS

Analysis of the Quality Maxim...... ,...... 30

Analysis of the Quantity Maxim...... 49

Analysis of the Manner Maxim...... 58

Analysis of the Relation Maxim ...... 63

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION...... 71

Quality Maxim Violations ...... 73

Quantity Maxim Violations ...... 75

Manner Maxim Violations ...... 79

Relation Maxim Violations...... 7 9

vii Comments...... 8 0

WORKS CITED...... 84

viii LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 . The Frequency of Maxim Violations Across

the Three Authors ...... 30

ix CHAPTER ONE

A RETROSPECTIVE ON

GUNS & AMMO MAGAZINE

"Fact is there are predators and there is prey.

Jungle Rules to Live by" (Grover 11). "Fight for your

firearms freedom!" (Klein 20). These are two examples of

several similar bolded excerpts and’ titles that assaulted

me as I scanned the current pages of Guns & Ammo for the

first time. My curiosity aroused, I scanned the pages of

several previous issues dating back to June 1962 noting a

considerable contrast in the rhetoric and tone that began

in the late 1970's. For example, Grotto's 1962 article

"The Belgian Browning 1903" (24) describes this firearm as

the forerunner of the automatic loading handgun. He

explains that with a few modifications it is the

equivalent of the Colt .32. These contrasting titles and

my significant other piqued my interest in the world and

language of firearm enthusiasts.

Although no research appears to have been done on the

history and language of Guns & Ammo magazine, I did locate

twelve limited reviews regarding the quality of the

information it provided. This small sample gave Guns &

Ammo an 85% approval rating for quality. Most agreed it is

1 informative, well written and concise. Some argue that it

"Feels like the same magazine -I was reading years ago"

(Mattjoe 1). In contrast, my own overview of Guns & Ammo

of the last four decades reveals some interesting shifts

in the magazine's context and audience. When Guns & Ammo

made its first appearance, in the 1960's, it offered

articles that revolved around the use and history of

firearms. For example, Arnold Chernoff's 1962 June article

"Those Yankee Pepperboxes" details the creation of the

machine gun's predecessor, why it was created and the

problems encountered in its use. The illustrations show

the Pepperbox's various designs from the Gatling gun to

the .22 caliber handgun. It is described as the "...king

of all pepperboxes" (34-37), and was originally designed

for police work. Evidently, this gun boasted six to ten

barrels that could all be fired at once. Consequently, it

peppers an adversary with bullets. The history regarding

the creation and development of this firearm demonstrate

that it was a working tool.

Another example of the practical information given in

earlier Guns & Ammo articles appears in Roger Barlow's

1962 June article "Single Shot Varmint Rifles." He details

the usefulness of single-action rifles in eradicating

woodchucks, crows and generally "varmints" from ranch and

2 farmland (Barlow 34). Evidently, these animals often

consume crops and livestock and therefore, threaten a

farmer's livelihood. It is important to note that the

earlier issues of Guns & Ammo focus on weaponry as a

useful tool rather than for personal defense or sport.

Barlow expands explaining why the bolt action, single

shot rifles remain popular, stating:

It is partly due to the association of these

venerable actions [bolt action] with a more

colorful and exciting period of our past. Many

of them hail from an era when guns were made not

manufactured; when workmen were truly craftsmen

and something of their pride and character was

imparted to the products they created.

(Barlow 21)

His use of the adjectives "venerable," "colorful,"

"exciting," "craftsmen" and "pride" reveal his deep

respect for firearms and American history.

Most of the advertisements in the 1962 issue suggest

that if you buy their .product you are buying a part of

U.S. History. Some of these are for riflescopes (devices

that assist in aiming a rifle); a few advertisements were

for handguns, gun paraphernalia (e.g., ammunition,

holsters, target scopes), and none were for knives. During

3 this time, firearm manufacturers attempted to have their

customers identify with the Old West by applying names

like Posse, Natchez, Longhorn and other similar titles to

their firearms. These-articles focus on what guns, rifles

and types of ammunition were best used in what situation,

gun safety and familial articles regarding the importance

of firearms for the family. In other words they give

practical advice for the use of firearms.

The image of the firearm as■a tool and important part

of history changes only once, in this 1962 issue. This

shift in tone occurred with the inclusion of an agitated

letter to the editor by Richard J. M.-Ray regarding gun

regulation in the United Kingdom. Ray's letter, dated June

1962, begins:

I, like thousands of other Englishmen, am a

gun-bug. [...he concludes] So take a timely

warning from us; it has happened on this side of

the Atlantic, and it will happen to you unless

each and every shooter gets on his hind feet and

throws these misguided legislators out of the

arena. (Ray 6)

Ray's fearful tone regarding gun-control is the only

aspect of this issue that shifts to a politically

emotional dimension. The other articles are quite

4 informational. For example, Elmer Keith's article

"Gunnotes" details firearm safety issues: how firing a

firearm with the wrong ammunition can destroy it; how an

inaccurate rifle sighting will not allow you to know

exactly which direction•the bullet will fly; how many

accidental deaths occur because hunters mistake humans and

pack animals for game and kill them (Keith 14). Many of

these articles also discuss the quality of earlier makes

of firearms.

In this 1962 Guns & Ammo issue some contributors

describe hunting for sport in an unappealing light. For

example, in the 1962 personal opinions column "Pinwheels

and Flyers" Don Osborn wrote that hunters are sadistic

(8). In this same article Jerry Rustad stated that use of

riflescopes is slaughter, not sport (8). This language

demonstrates a respect for wildlife as well as the unfair

advantage technology gives to the hunter. A sense of fair

play emerges in these words.

My overview reveals that this issue of Guns & Ammo

seldom adopts political rhetoric. The informational,

respectful tone of this magazine details the history and

uses of various weapons, suggesting that the audience may

not be concerned or threatened with the politics of gun

control.

5 The political tone increases slightly in 1970. Of the

twenty-five articles in the January 1970 issue of Guns &

Ammo, four consider Second Amendment rights or social

issues. One of the six letters to the editor discusses gun

control legislation stemming from the harm a

"disrespectful, irresponsible, unsporting 'gun jerk' can

do" (Laska 10). Laska's word choice "disrespectful,"

"irresponsible," "unsporting," and "gun jerk" denote

thoughtlessness rather than depravity. Another letter

gives an interpretation of the Constitution explaining

that:

...the right of the people to keep and bear arms

will not be infringed upon [...] it [the Second

Amendment] mentions '"Militia" and Webster's

definition of Militia is "male citizens between

the ages of 18-45, not of the Reserves, Navy or

Army. (Anderson 10)

Further arguments against gun control and the expense of

such laws fill the rest of the argument. Another letter to

the editor continues along Anderson's train of thought,

arguing:

The Constitution was formulated by men who

were masters of the English language. They wrote

6 exactly what they meant and they knew exactly

how to write what they meant. (Home 10)

Bob Neal's January 1970 column "Washington Report:

Buying a New Gun? It Isn't Tough Yet...... but It Could Be!"

details what he believes to be the devious means that gun

control advocates go to in attempting to restrict

firearms. The color format of this article appears to

denote good versus evil. That is, the half with his claims

is white with black print. The other half that details the

Congressional debate regarding gun regulation is black

with white print. The prevalence of black creates ominous

implications regarding firearm regulation. Neal begins by

utilizing the cliche "...more than one way to skin a cat"

(8) . He argues that the first step in outlawing firearms

comes with the licensing of firearms. Furthermore,

regulation adds an economic burden on the gun enthusiast

and infringes on personal privacy. He continues detailing

that firearm regulation "...fails to fulfill its major

stated purpose—keeping guns out of the hands of criminals,

mental defectives, and the like" (9) and warns to guard

against future gun laws. Interestingly, Neal resorts to

cliche use only once in this article, and concludes that

all gun control advocates hope to ban firearms. He does

7 not resort to destructive value words to impinge upon the

character of his opponents to make his case.

This same issue of Guns & Ammo boasts an article, by

Alien Hargrove, titled "How the Press Can 'Lie' About Guns

'Erroneous Conclusions of Unqualified 'Experts'’ Are Quoted

As News, but Accepted As Fact" (24) that incorporates

destructive value words. He argues that reporters often

write stories in haste and may not be objective.

Consequently, the public is being "brainwashed" by "...the

daily diet of subtle, insidious antigun sentiment

contained in news stories" (24). The public is brainwashed

because, "...any newscast, in any newspaper" that mentions

firearms connects them to war, crime and "...the

decimation of our wildlife" (24). In other words

newscasters slant their stories toward the idea that a

disarmed society is somehow safer, an "insidious

suggestion" (24). This implies that the public is forced,

by the constant repeated message, to think a certain way.

Additionally, the adjective "insidious" suggests that

newscasters are sneaky, an assault on their moral

character. Hargrove attempts to explain that the use of

word murder instead of homicide misleads the audience in

that murder is "...illegal, unjustified homicide" (25) and

homicide is the killing of another human being. Hargrove concludes "These people [gun-control advocates] intend to

disarm the American people at any cost--make no mistake

about that" (25).

These articles from 1970 indicate how the content of

this magazine begins to shift from information regarding

gun use and safety to a political text tinged with fear

and anger.

The January 1980 Guns &.Ammo.issue incorporates three

articles that discuss political issues. The' "Washington

Report" is similar to "The Second Amendment's" format in

that it uses freelance contributions. The "Washington

Report," by James Oliver, discusses the appointment of a

gun-control proponent, Abner Mikva, to the United States

Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Oliver

explains the lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of

Mikva's lifetime appointment and the Senatorial debate

that ensued. Oliver does not engage in destructive value

words.

In this same 1980 issue two of the five letters to

the editor consider gun-control. One short letter, by

Representative Philip M. Crane, explains his opposition to

Mitva's appointment. He describes Mitva as "...a fine man"

(8), though, a man he often opposes in Congress,

especially regarding gun control (8) .

9 The second letter discusses "Your Right to Keep and

Bear Arms" column of March 1979 which faults bureaucrats

instead of Congress for wrong-headed legislation. John D.

Shafer suggests that Congress is solely to blame regarding

the gun-control legislation (8) without outright stating

the word gun-control.

During the 1970's and 1980's most of Guns & Ammo's

content revolved around firearms and their use with a

limited number of articles and letters arguing against gun

control. Most of these describe the wrong-headedness of

gun control, but do not portray gun control proponents as

demonic. The tone of most these articles did not exhibit

strong, emotional rhetoric regarding Second Amendment

rights, a tone that drastically changed in the 1990's.

In the December 1998 Guns & Ammo's rhetoric is quite

combative as shown in a dark letter to the editor from Jim

Gampetro entitled, "Gun-Control Ghouls" (Gampetro 7). In

this letter he describes gun control proponents as

"gun-control ghouls" "fanatics," "talking heads," "Handgun

Control Inc.," "shills," "self-serving," and

"money-grabbers." He then concludes:

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

is, [...] an individual right, not a state right

and not a privilege. It is not to be infringed,

10 let alone abrogated. [...] It is the final

resource of free men in the event of tyranny

from their own government or invasion by other

governments. Those who would trade their freedom

for security neither deserve—nor do they ever

achieve—either. (Gampetro 7)

Gampetro's aggressive tone suggests that he may be fearful

regarding his right to own and bear arms. This tone

demonstrates that some of his audience's interest has

shifted to incorporate the politics of firearms along with

their history and use.

An index of articles for 1998 listed in The June 1999

issue of Guns & Ammo indicate that out of one hundred

thirty-three articles twelve discuss Second Amendment

rights. However, a deeper analysis of the December 1998

issue reveals that seven of twenty-seven of the articles

revolve around Second Amendment rights or social issues.

Consequently, this index may be misleading. I do not have

access to all the 1998 issues and could not do a more

detailed analysis of the articles. The number of articles

that revolve around Second Amendment rights and social

issues are as follow: January 1999, seven of twenty-eight;

June 1999, seven of thirty-seven; December 1999, four of

twenty-six. These numbers may demonstrate that during the

11 late 1990's Second Amendment rights and societal issues

absorbed approximately 20 of Guns & Ammo format.

During 1999 many articles and advertisements attempt

to instill fear for personal security into the audience.

Several nonpolitical articles appear in 1998, but a number

of articles and letters to the editor include' vehement,

negative rhetoric regarding gun control proponents. The

destructive metaphors, "ghouls," "shills," "fanatics,"

"power-mongers," "money-grabbers" and allusions to Nazi

Germany's gun control policy, frequently appear regarding

gun control, something that did not occur in earlier

issues. As I read, a sense of alarm, alienation and anger

emerges in these pages, something that previously did not

exist in this magazine's rhetoric.- Similarly, the

advertisements suggest that individuals must purchase

weaponry, its paraphernalia or a security system to avoid

becoming a victim. Some of the weapons are named after

venomous animals whose bite often leads to death, for

example "Bushmaster." Other names "Savage" and "Combat"

indicate violent conflict. Unless the firearm came from

established gun manufacturers like Colt, Winchester or

Berreta, the general trend in naming weaponry tends to

denote aggression, which sharply contrasts with 1962's

less violent names of "Natchez" and "Posse."

12 As of June 2000, Guns & Ammo boasted a national

circulation of 429,225 and 1,916 in Canada; these numbers

represent a powerful, political force in North America. My

overview suggests that changes in the themes and tone of

this magazine have occurred during the last three decades.

Some of these changes reflect the writers' linguistic and

rhetorical strategies such as implicature. To date, no

study analyzes how implicature is used in Guns & Ammo to

help achieve its. powerful, combative and fraternal tone

which strengthen its political messages. The purpose of my

study is to do such an analysis. Chapter Two offers an

explanation of implicature followed by definitions and

examples of the Quality, Quantity, Manner and Relation

speech maxims. Chapter Three presents the methodology and

research questions. Chapter Four reveals the results of

this study, highlighting the maxim violations and the

implicatures they create. Chapter Five will consider these

violations and implicatures in context with previous

research in Psycholinguistics.

13 CHAPTER TWO

THE THEORETICAL AND

METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK

Herbert Paul Grice

Herbert Paul Grice (1913-1988), a well-known

linguist, worked in various positions at Oxford University

between the late 1930's until 1967. In 1967 Grice moved to

Berkeley, California, where he'taught full and part time

until 1986. His work in language and semantics.created the

shift in philosophical debate from linguistic to mental

representation (Gauker 1). That is, he is well known for

analyzing meaning in conversations.

The Cooperative Principle

The focus of this study is Grice's theory of

Conversational Implicature. This concept incorporates the

Cooperative Principle and four speech maxims. Grice argues

that when communicating individuals work within something

he calls the Cooperative Principle for understanding. When

operating within this principle the participants in

conversation understand that they are to make the

conversational contribution such as is required, at the

stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or

direction of the talk exchange in which your are engaged

14 (Grice Studies 26). The Cooperative Principle centers on

the assumption that participants in communication wish to

be understood and to understand and they continually make

assumptions to do so. For example, if A states "I'm

hungry" and B states that "There's a steak in the

freezer," A may assume that B either intends to cook the

steak or intends for A to cook the steak in spite of the

literal irrelevance of B's comment.

Definitions and Examples of the

Quality, Quantity, Manner

and Relation Maxims

Grice further defines four subcategories, or speech

maxims, that operate within the Cooperative Principle.

They are "Quantity, Quality, Relation, and Manner" (Grice

Studies 26-27) . With respect to Quantity, Grice claims

that in conversation you need to give as much information

as necessary. To omit or give too much information may

mislead your audience. When a speaker utilizes this tact,

it hints at the need to beguile the audience and violates

the Quantity maxim. The Quality maxim operates on the

presumption that the speaker must be truthful and not

deliberately make a false statement or a statement that

cannot be supported with sufficient evidence. The Relation

maxim asserts that the speaker's conversational

15 contributions relate to the topic. Grice also argues that

speakers should "Be perspicuous" (Grice Studies 27) in

conversation (Manner maxim). That is, be clear, avoid

obscurity and ambiguity, and be brief and orderly.

The following examples illustrate how the maxims may

be broken in conversation:

1. Quality. An individual decides to clean a trashcan

after several months of use. The

significant other states, "Oh, you're

cleaning the trashcan." The cleaner

replies, "Well, it's been a day or two."

(Untruthful)

2. Quantity. An individual inquires "Why do you oppose

capital punishment?" The hearer replies

"Just because" (too little information) or

"Capital punishment is a barbaric crime

against humanity and those who uphold it

are murderers of the worse sort." (Too much

information)

3. Relation. The significant other arrives home and

inquires, "Would you like to go to the

mountains tomorrow for a picnic." The

hearer responds "I have to work on my

16 thesis." (The answer does not literally

relate to the question)

4. Manner. Significant others discuss taking their

child out for ice cream. "A" states "Do you

want to take the y-o-u k-n-o-w w-h-o for

i-c-e c-r-e-a-m? (Unclear)

As part of the Cooperative Principle, conversational

implicature revolves around the idea that individuals

communicate through a series of cooperative efforts with a

common purpose. Grice argues that what a word "means"

stems from the speaker's intended meaning and the

circumstances surrounding that conversation. This may

diverge from the literal meaning of the words spoken

(Grice Studies 24). The speaker uses implicature to

suggest or hint rather than literally state his/her

meaning, and the audience often makes inferences from what

is actually said to make meaning. For example, when an

employee believes that he or she merits a raise in pay,

that individual may frequently mention how pleased a

client was with her/his efforts. In other words, that

person may imply that he or she works well, is an asset to

the company and deserves a raise in pay. He or she hopes

that the hearer will make the proper inference and

increase the speaker's pay. In contrast, when discussing

17 this same topic with their significant other he or she may

literally state, "I deserve a raise in pay" and detail

their reasons for their claim. In both scenarios the topic

is the same, but different situations and listeners create

the need to use different words and behaviors. In both

situations the speaker and audience understand the meaning

of the conversation by following Grice's Cooperative

Principle. In the first situation an employer may

understand what the speaker/employee's words mean and

either choose to ignore or acknowledge the "hints." That

is, the employee has only implied that he or she deserves

a raise. This graciously allows the employer to "save

face" if the employer decides that a raise is not

warranted. The use of implicature in this situation avoids

straining the relationship between employer and employee.

This practice of distinguishing between what an individual

literally states and the implied meaning of words is

commonly practiced in the English language for the sake of

politeness.

Maxim violations often result in implicature. For

example, another employee hoping.to receive an increase in

pay may violate the speech maxims to diminish fellow

employees believing that he or she will appear superior

and as a consequence earn a promotion. He or she may state

18 within their supervisor's hearing, "I wonder why-that

beached whale works here? His appearance gives the company

the wrong image? I always take the extra effort to look my

best for the company." Also, the speaker may state, "Why

does it take Bruce forever to get his work done? He's a

slow as molasses in January." By doing so the speaker

violates the Quality maxim of truthfulness in that his or

her peer obviously is not a beached whale or as slow as

molasses. By violating this maxim- the speaker uses

implicature to suggest that he or she is the superior

employee and hopes the supervisor will make the same

inference.

Whether intended or inadvertent, implicature is

created when the maxims are violated. From habit, a

speaker may resort to cliches or idioms when speaking. For

example, after an adolescent runs the same stop sign three

times, and receives a ticket and fine all three times, his

or her parent may use the often repeated idiom, "You're

not the sharpest tool in the shed are you," a violation of

the Quality maxim. Obviously, the child is not a tool. By

utilizing this idiom the speaker hopes the child will

infer that he or she is not too intelligent because he or

she did not learn from his or her mistake.

19 Flouting the Maxims

Grice applied another rule within the Cooperative

Principle's subcategories of maxim violations. He claims

that a maxim violation may occur when the speaker intends

for the listener not to recognize a violation. However,

two exceptions occur when the speaker intends for the

listener to know a maxim is being violated. G-rice

describes one as flouting (Grice Studies 30). For example,

Mark Twain rebuffed the academic community stating:

Persons attempting to find a motive in this

narrative will be prosecuted; [Quality] persons

attempting to find a moral will be banished.

[Quality] ...I have never tried in one single

instance to help cultivate the cultivated

classes. [...] And I never had any ambition in

that direction, [Quantity] but always hunted for

bigger game [Quality]--the masses. (Twain 6)

Here, Twain deliberately breaks the Quality maxim;

therefore he flouts it because the listener realizes that

individuals attempting to find a motive or moral in

Twain's tales will not be prosecuted or banished by the

judicial system. The comment regarding ambition provides

an additional negative slight directed toward the literati

to further insult their worth and Twain's audience

20 understands this, a Quantity maxim violation. The metaphor

"game" turns the masses into prey and Twain into the

predator, a Quality maxim violation.

Similar to Twain, the science-fiction author Robert

Heinlein frequently flouted the speech maxims. In response

to literati's vehement, negative reviews of his work he

humorously replied:

Each copy is guaranteed—or double your

money back--to be printed on genuine paper of

enough pages to hold the covers apart.

(Heinlein 3)

Here Heinlein dismisses the academic community's critique

by responding with unrelated comments on the paper and

binding of his books and does not reply to their critique

of the actual language he employed in his works. By

flouting the speech maxims, both Twain and Heinlein

humorously dismiss the academic criticism and imply that

their critiques are not worthy of serious consideration.

Opting Out of the Maxims

Another violation exception occurs when an individual

"opts out" of the conversation by simply refusing to

continue with the conversation (Grice Studies 30). For

example, when discussing the issue of gun-control with an

21 acquaintance he simply stated "I do not wish to continue

with this topic because this is something I strongly

believe in and I will become angry." By doing so, he

intended for me to know he was not going to operate within

the conversational principle. That is, he opted out of the

conversation.

Previous Applications of Grice

Many academics have found Grice interesting enough to

apply his theory to various texts. For example, Smith

(1997) used Conversational Implicature to examine

weight-loss advertisement. She found that advertisers

broke most the speech maxims "...in order to imply that

which they did not want to openly declare" (Smith 67).

That is, these advertisers attempt to avoid liability with

vague and misleading advertising. Smith cites Cooper's

findings to support her conclusion:

...those who hide their violation (and are

caught) are taken to be liars and disbelieved;

those who violate maxims as to obstruct

communication are taken to have reasons for

their uncooperativeness. (qtd. in Smith 69)

Smith also cites Kennamer's findings: (1988)

22 ...a purposeful violation of the Cooperative

Principle by a message sender, without the

knowledge of the receiver, constitutes deception

on the part of the sender, (qtd. in Smith 70)

Smith concurs with Kennamer that weight-loss

advertisers use implication to deceive and/or' mislead

their audience, but argues that individuals cannot assume

that all who break the speech maxims are deceptive because

of the limited research in this area.

Chen applied implicature to the fictional characters

in Rose's Twelve Angry. Men and focused on how often each

maxim violation occurred and what these violations suggest

about the characters. He asserts that violating the

Quality maxim may indicate "...that the speaker is

humorous, interesting, sarcastic, colourful in speech, or

a downright liar" (Chen 32). Chen found that jurors who

frequently broke the Quality maxim did so "...to insult,

to satirize, and to attack personally their fellow jurors

who do not agree with them" (46), traits generally viewed

as unappealing. On the other hand, he concludes that Juror

Eight violates the Relation and Quantity maxims to keep

the jury focused and to argue in a non-combative manner,

therefore, increasing his power of persuasion. Thus, Juror

23 Eight appears as "...positive, likeable, and possibly

admirable" (46).

Chen determined that although this summary is

"...fairly accurate, [it] may be misleading" (46) in that

the use of implicature must be analyzed by the breaking of

the maxims and the situation in which the maxim violation

occurs. Chen cites Bennison's (1933) application of

implicature to Anderson's Professional Foul and Harris'

(1992) study on Joyce's The Portrait of the Artist as a

Young Man to support his claim that when applying

implicature to fictional' characters:

...we need not only to look at the type of

implicature, but also various aspects of the

implicatures themselves: the prepositional

contents of the utterance, the effects of the

implicature, the motivation for the violation of

the maxim in question. In a word, to yield

insights into characterization, the analyst

needs to look into the intricacies of the

implicature involved. (Chen)

Smith and Chen assert that currently we cannot

attribute positive or negative traits to a speaker simply

by analyzing how often that individual violates a maxim.

24 This study will build on the groundwork laid by Smith

and Chen and may reveal why communicants, in this case

three contributors' to Guns & Ammo magazine, use

implicature to present their messages in particular ways.

The analysis may reveal how implicature is used to

strengthen their messages.

25 CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY AND RESEARCH

QUESTIONS

This analysis aims to demonstrate the effects of

implicature on the texts in Guns & Ammo magazine. In

addition, given the fearful tone in these three articles,

the data may possibly reveal some aspects of the

contributors' perceptions regarding United States society

and government. In subsequent discussions, I will address

the following research questions:

1. Do these writers use implicature and, if so, how

and why do they do so?

2. How do their maxim violations strengthen their

argument or tone?

3. With what frequency does each writer violate

each maxim.

4. What may these violations reveal about the

author's tendencies in communication?

The data for this study were taken from six 1999 Guns

& Ammo texts. These texts appear to be generally

representative of the change from strictly information

regarding guns and their use to include political and

26 social commentary and reflect Guns & Ammo's present day

language, tone and format.

A general overview of Guns & Ammo 1999 issues show

that approximately 80 of the articles revolve around one

of the following: weaponry and its use; the other 20

exudes emotional language regarding security, Second

Amendment rights or society. For example many letters to

the editor exhibit negative metaphors and adjectives when

discussing gun control. Three of the six articles analyzed

are from Charlton Heston's monthly column, "From the

Capitol." The January subtitle is "The Cost of Freedom and

the Price of Silence: Defending the Second Amendment is

Tantamount to Swimming in a Shark-Infested Pool--It's Not

for the Faint of Heart." The June subtitle is "Lawsuits

Against Liberty; How Tobacco-Settlement Attorneys Threaten

to Bankrupt the American Gun Industry." The December

subtitle is "Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics: How Media

Polls Misrepresent Public Opinion and Pervert National

Debate." In addition, two articles from Jim Grover's

recurring column "Personal Security" were evaluated. The

January column subtitle is, "The Biggest Steal: Credit

Criminals Can Use Information About You to Live High and

Handsome. It's Called Identity Theft." The December column

is subtitled "Hot Spot Hubris: Want to Stay Out of Harm's

27 Way? Well, Unless Your Presence Is Really Required,

Avoiding Dangerous Locales Is the Most Sensible Way to Do

It." Finally, one freelance article by Chuck Klein in the

monthly column "Second Amendment: Fight for Your Firearms

Freedom!: The Other Right to Keep and Bear Arms: Use the

Ninth Amendment to Save The Second." The four texts by

Heston and Klein revolve around Second Amendment rights.

Grover's two articles give advice on personal' security.

All six texts demonstrate the writers' fear regarding the

loss of their rights and security. The recurring articles

by Heston and Grover are of similar length. Heston's

articles are approximately 884-960 words in length.

Grover's consists of about 710 words. Klein's freelance

contribution consists of roughly 2,346 words. They do not

discuss any specifics regarding gun safety or firearm

essentials. Instead, their concerns are of a social nature

focusing on fear, victimization, Second Amendment rights,

patriotism, and the lack of character in United States

society.

The data was compiled and put into Table 1 to show

how often each writer violates each maxim. In analyzing

the data, the frequency with which each contributor

violates each maxim was calculated. The resulting

28 implicatures stemming from the maxim violations was then

studied in order to answer the research questions.

29 CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS

Analysis of the Quality Maxim

Table 1 reveals the frequency of maxim breaking. This

table illustrates the authors' inclinations in

communicating.

Table 1.

The Frequency of Maxim Violations Across the Three Authors

Article Quantity Quality Relation Manner

"From the Capitol" 6 9 15 0

(Heston)

"Personal Security" 5 11 2 1

(Grover)

’ 3 "Second Amendment" 19 9 4

(Klein)

Totals 30 29 20 5

As can be seen in the table, the disparity in the

frequency of maxim violations is apparent. The writers

violate the Quality’ and Quantity maxims substantially more

often than the Manner and Relation maxims. Consequently, I

will begin the analysis with them. Before discussing each

30 maxim violation I must point out that one violation often

overlaps the others. For example, if you describe a gun

control advocate as a ghoul (a demon or grave robber) this

breaks the Quality (truthfulness), Relation (relevance)

and Manner (clarity) maxims. First, it would be difficult

to prove the truthfulness of gun-control proponents being

demons or grave robbers. Second, how does a demon or grave

robber relate to the argument at hand, gun control? Third,

utilizing extraneous, negative, metaphoric language simply

clouds the issue with too much information instead of

clarifying it. Nevertheless, for the sake of

organizational clarity, the maxim violations in Guns &

Ammo will be presented separately.-

The frequent breaking of the Quality maxim

(truthfulness) appears in Charlton Heston's recurring

column "From the Capitol: Lawsuits Against Liberty: How

Tobacco-Settlement Attorneys Threaten to Bankrupt the

American Gun Industry." Heston claims that class action

lawsuits against gun manufacturers and retailers are:

...a marriage of convenience. Bankrupt

politicians seeking easy "solutions" to crime

are being seduced by ambulance-chasing attorneys

who promise them political cover, and a cut of

the proceeds, from their next planned courtroom

31 kill: the American firearms industry. And the

anti-gun lobby couldn't be happier. (39)

The article's title reveals Heston's premise that the

anti-tobacco lawsuits (to knowingly sell a hazardous

material) will eventually be applied to bankrupt the gun

industry. Heston appears to be on a slippery slope

suggesting that similar to tobacco products, guns will

eventually be declared "a hazardous material" and, like

the tobacco industry, gun manufacturers will be sued for

damages. This breaks the Quality maxim (truthfulness)

because it presupposes something will happen and no

individual knows what will happen until it happens.

Furthermore, he uses implicature to portray his opponents

as corrupt with the terms "bankrupt" and

"ambulance-chasing." Both adjectives break the Quality

maxim by depicting gun control politicians and attorneys

as moral destitutes who are only interested in personal

economic gain. His argument regarding "easy solutions"

also presupposes that class-action lawsuits do not require

extensive time and cost. In addition, Heston's final

assertion of a "courtroom kill" metaphorically changes the

gun industry into the prey of gun-control advocates. This

breaks the Quality maxim by presenting gun-control

advocates actively attempting to destroy the gun industry

32 instead of controlling it. The ironic imagery of the

hunter now being the hunted may not be lost on the

audience.

Similar to the maxim-breaking of Juror Three in

Chen's analysis, Heston's Quality maxim violations

strengthen the aggressiveness of the message and

communicates a sense of willingness to do "...whatever it

takes [to win], including causing offense to others" (Chen

37). Heston may intend to provoke fear regarding gun

regulations in his audience with his maxim violations. The

negative, metaphoric language continues throughout this

article and may possibly reveal his aggressive

communication tendencies when his stance is contested..

In another section of the article, Heston argues

that:

Like shrewd investors, these legal predators

have even put up millions of dollars [...] to

bait plaintiffs and bankroll their extortionist

schemes. [...] Which means that cities could

walk away with millions in settlement awards

without having to spend a nickel to file their

suits. (39)

The simile "Like shrewd investors" breaks the Quality

maxim. This stereotypical claim assumes that all

33 gun-regulation class action lawsuit lawyers are astute,

discerning, cunning, tricky, sharp and clever (The

American Heritage Dictionary 1200). Heston also implies

that lawyers will earn a great deal of money in settlement

fees by instigating a lawsuit. This is impossible to know;

thus, he violates the Quality maxim. By using, the

negative, stereotypical metaphor "legal predators" he

identifies these lawyers as hunters stalking the gun

industry, again breaking the Quality maxim. Also, for the

negative adjective "extortionist" to be accurate these

lawyers would have to ask the gun industry for money not

to instigate these lawsuits. Here, Heston's breaking of

this maxim results in an implicature that denigrates

gun-control lawyers and communicates his fear of gun

regulation.

To help demonstrate the power of Heston's

implicature, a revision of Heston's argument without the

maxim breaking follows:

( Politicians, attorneys and the gun control

lobby have recently joined forces to create

stronger gun control legislation that includes

the fire arm industry. Attorneys have invested

millions of dollars to assist cities in their

efforts to gain financial compensation incurred

34 by gun violence. Consequently, these cities may

gain millions in settlement awards .from the gun

industry without having to bear the cost of a

lengthy legal battle.

The reworking of this passage reveals the strength

implicature gives the.original argument and increases the

aggressiveness of the message. Please note the difference

in language in the rephrasing of Heston's paragraph

without the explosive language. For example, the use of

"politicians" without the adjective "bankrupt"; "attorney"

instead of "legal predator" and "ambulance chasing";

"invested" instead of "bait," and "compensation" instead

of "extortionist schemes," and "cut of the proceeds" cause

paragraph to lose its impact.

Similar to Heston, Grover frequently indulges in

violating the Quality maxim. His article "Personal

Security: Safety and Sense: Hot Spot Hubris" begins,

I'm writing this column after two recent

attacks. One involved the binding, blindfolding

and shooting of three Americans along the

Venezuelan border with Columbia. The other was

in Uganda and involved the hacking to death of

several Americans and Brits engaged, in a

gorilla-watching tour. [...] Remember, depending

35 on your ethnic background, some places are okay

for you to be and other, places just aren't. (10)

Grover implies that if you are white and visiting another

area populated by people of color, you just are not safe,

a stereotypical and racist comment. Not all members of one

group exhibit the same traits. His racial stereotyping

breaks the Quality maxim of truthfulness. Bold, large-font

subtitles strengthen his message, "Fact is there are

predators and there is prey [ . . . ] Jungle Rule's to Live by"

(11). Grover hopes to instill fear into his audience with

the words "predators," "prey" and "jungle." His

stereotypical claim that individuals who travel to certain

areas of the world are either the prey or the predator

expresses the disturbing judgment: you are either the

hunter or the game. Consequently, he uses implicature to

suggest that your survival in these areas depends on

adopting a paranoid persona. In this statement, he breaks

the Quality maxim in that not all people fall into one or

the other category when traveling in hazardous areas,

areas which Grover fails to identify.

Further, he outlines the rules which individuals need

to follow to survive in the "Jungle" we live in. The

"Jungle Rules" are as follows:

36 • The bad guy wants what you have.

• You will always be attacked when conditions are

least advantageous to you and most advantageous

to your attacker.

• If it can go wrong, it will.

• If you snooze, you lose.

• Proper preparation prevents poor performance.

• Go lightly.

• Your most powerful weapon sits ony our

shoulders.

' • You reap what you sow.

• Look for trouble, and you'lla lways find more

than you can handle.

• There is always someone sharper, tougher,

meaner, nastier, hungrier and more prepared than

you. (11)

Here, Grover violates the Quality maxim on several counts.

Grover argues that 1) you will be attacked when you least

expect it; 2) you will encounter more problems that you

expect; 3) you will lose your property, health and

possibly you life if not alert; and 4) you will find

trouble if you look for it. All four claims indicate that

attacks, theft and harm will assail you if you are not

vigilant. This violates the Quality maxim in that you

37 don't know what will happen until it happens.. This maxim

breaking results in an implicature suggesting the benefits

of apprehension. For example, his claim that "Your most

powerful weapon sits on your shoulders" suggests your head

is not a weapon, your intellect is. Here, Grover implies

that your intellect provides more protection than brute

force. The last rule, that there is always someone meaner,

nastier, hungrier, etc., again breaks the Quality maxim,

creating an implicature that fear is the best weapon to

protect yourself. The use of implicature conveys Grover's

fear and alienation of individuals unlike himself and

demonstrates his aggression in communication. All may

reveal his anxiety. His recurring use of the words

"predators" and "prey" indicate a sense of alarm and

appear to be the main theme that binds approximately 20 of

Guns & Ammo together.

In the January 1999 issue, Grover's article, "The

Biggest Steal: Credit Criminals Can Use Information About

You to Live High and Handsome. It's Called Identity Theft"

revolves around identity theft instead of firearms and

violence. It exudes the same sense of alarm. Similar to

his December 1999 article "Hot Spot Hubris," Grover uses

implicature to strengthen his message. Here he claims:

38 Identity theft. If those two words don't alarm

you, then you need to rethink your threat

analysis. (Grover 12)

Again, Grover violates the Quality maxim in that he

assumes that all individuals have a "threat analysis" and

should be "alarmed" by identity theft. This violation

creates an implicature to instill fear into the audience.

Additionally, his use of the word "alarm" in ’contrast to

"If you are not aware of these two words you should be"

suggests fear is the best protection. Similar to the word

"predator," "alarm" implies danger and that you, the

audience, should practice continual vigilance in

protecting yourself against the "bad guy." Grover asserts

that many are in the business of collecting and selling

information on individuals. These businesses have the

ability to gather enough information about you to allow a

predator to purchase your identity to ruin your credit

and/or possibly commit crimes. Additionally, you cannot

have your name stricken from these information businesses

because writing a check will reinstate you in their

database.

Grover concludes with his rules on "How to Prevent

Identity Theft." These common sense rules are widely

39 followed with a few exceptions. For example, rules six and

seven state:

6. Pay with cash whenever possible and refuse to

give the clerk your name, address and phone

number. If they insist, make it up.

7. Remember, when you request a catalog, you just

requested about a gazillion more than you

thought because that list is sold to other

catalog providers. Make such request with

discretion. Every three months or so, request a

credit report to see who has been requesting

credit data on you. (12)

First, many individuals find it unnerving to shop with

cash. If cash is stolen, that is it; it is gone. His

advice results in a Quality maxim violation in that it is

untrue. Second, a perpetrator could easily observe a

shopper making a purchase, note the amount of cash in the

shopper's billfold and appropriate the remaining funds

from the shopper at knife or gunpoint. This rule thus

violates the Quality maxim because shoppers may create a

threat to their personal security instead of securing it.

Third, the exaggeration, "gazillion" breaks the same maxim

with exaggeration, an untruth, because the word is not in

the dictionary. Grover's Quality maxim violations create

40 implicature that suggests that.there are advantages to

having a fearful personality in light of the "gazillion"

threats to personal security that exist daily life.

Similar to "From the Capital" and "Personal

Security," the rhetoric in "Second Amendment, Fight for

Your Firearms Freedom!: The Other Right to Keep and Bear

Arms: Use the Ninth Amendment to Save the Second" (Klein

20) reveals how maxim violations strengthen a message. The

emotional rhetoric incorporated in the title of this

article prepares the audience for an argument regarding

Second Amendment rights. In the body of his article, Klein

breaks the Quality maxim asserting:

We, the constitutionally correct, the strict

constructionists, the followers of the founders

of this great nation, have always let our

position be known. We have never hidden or

shirked our commitment to the principles of the

rule of law and the law of rules. Our

detractors, on the other hand, have for the most

part, hemmed, hawed, postulated, twisted,

deferred, demurred and in general, attacked us

based on "feel good" and political correctness.

(20)

41 Here, Klein violates the Quality maxim and creates the

implication that individuals who interpret the

Constitution as he does are always forthright and lawful

and individuals with opposing opinions are shifty and

dishonest. His negative and positive generalizations

stereotypes, a violation of the Quality maxim, which

implies that the audience will identify and agree with his

argument.

He continues arguing:

Furthermore, must we commoners now accept

whatever a tyrannical state decrees because we

have no power to object to our state's rules?

(21)

The adjective "commoner," "a person not of the

nobility" (The American Heritage Dictionary 295), alludes

to the 1776 American Revolutionary War against England and

metaphorically changes members of the gun community into

subjects of the crown. Consequently, he again breaks the

Quality maxim. He then asserts that "...a well-regulated

militia" is an armed citizenry, not the 98 federally

funded National Guard. He concludes that if the government

legislates unconstitutional gun regulation laws, the

citizenry would be unable to revolt as they did in the

American Revolution. Furthermore, the charged word

42 "tyrannical" pertains to 1) a despot 2) a title of

nobility 3) one who may be arbitrary, 4) determined by

whim 5) oppressive, harsh, causing physical or mental

distress (American Heritage Dictionary 1389). Far from

being a tyranny, the United States has a representative

government that is elected, is not a monarchy, and

incorporates a massive bureaucracy which cannot move by

whim and seldom by one individual. Granted, some argue

that it's oppressive, harsh, and causes physical and

mental distress, especially around tax time, but it still

grants all of its citizens * more freedom than many other

governments. Thus, by utilizing the adjective tyrannical

Klein breaks the Quality maxim of truthfulness. Here he

thus creates an implication that citizens should fear the

government of the United States.

Furthermore, Klein describes the incidents at Waco

and Ruby Ridge as outrages, "...that would horrify the

founding fathers" (21). We cannot communicate with our

founding fathers; so how is it possible for Klein to know

gun control legislation would horrify them? Again, Klein's

presumption breaks the Quality maxim. By doing so he

aligns himself with the founding fathers and utilizes

implicature to suggest the unconstitutional nature of gun

regulation. His powerful implicature suggests his

43 patriotism and casts a shroud of treason on gun

regulation.

He continues, employing negative adjectives to

describe those who disagree with his stance. For example,

Klein's arguments regarding gun control utilize possibly

slanderous language regarding control advocates. He states

that the Ninth:

...doesn't refer to any right to keep and bear

arms, [...] but it does spell out our other

rights. These other rights, unlisted but

nonetheless genuine liberties--and the powers to

secure them—are what the pseudo scholars and

alleged learned jurists uniformly and

consistently fail to comprehend. You can't have

it both ways! (Klein 22)

Klein violates the Quality maxim with these misnomers.

Individuals considered to be scholars and jurists hold

credentials issued to them by accredited academic

institutions. To describe them as pseudo or alleged

contends that they are fake, a violation of the Quality

maxim. This implies that they lack credibility, perhaps

reflecting Klein's perceptions. Additionally, this

suggestion attempts to strengthen Klein's image and claim.

44 Unlike Heston and Grover, Klein implies that he is

doing "God's will" in his fight for Second Amendment

rights and utilizes implication in the form of religious

language to strengthen his argument. He attempts to

clarify his claim with an emotional discussion regarding

the "sacredness" of Declaration of Independence. He argues

that at the historic moment of its creation the founding

fathers were fighting English oppression and they wanted

to be clear that:

We hold these truths to be self-evident that all

men are created equal that they are endowed by

their Creator [...] each, upon birth, is endowed

(granted, guaranteed) by their Creator (God,

Jehovah, Buddha, Adonai...) with certain

Inalienable Rights ... These inalienable (cannot

be taken away) rights (guarantees) are given

(endowed) , at birth, to each of the all men by

their Creator. [...] that among these are Life,

Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. [...]

Such pursuits include, but are not limited to,

the right to worship as you believe or

collect/shoot guns. (22)

Since Klein chooses to use "God" in the religious sense,

he breaks the Quality maxim (truthfulness) as there are no

45 Biblical or other religious scriptures regarding firearm

regulation. Klein's maxim-breaking creates an implicature

that gun-control is unconstitutional and irreligious. This

use of implicature suggests Klein's morality and the

sinfulness of gun regulation.

Interestingly, the Declaration of Independence

violates the Quality maxim and undermines his argument.

The line, "We hold these truths to be self-evident,"

breaks the Quality maxim in that these "truths" were not

self-evident to the English monarchy. Consequently,

Klein's use of this document to support his claim actually

undercuts it.

Klein continues violating the Quality maxim by

asserting that:

The person seeking to secure his right to

protect his family is obligated to commit some

action, such as keeping and bearing arms. It is

his duty, not the government's, to secure his

personal rights and guarantees. Protecting

individual life and liberty is not a function of

any government. Government's well-established

civilian defense role is that of protection

against foreign invasion, keeping order and

seeing that the people's constitutional rights

46 are not violated by its agents, employees and

officials. (23)

Klein argues that our government illegally protects

individual life, liberty and rights with its various

federal, state, county, city agencies and laws. Also, he

violates the Quality maxim by asserting that we do not

have a well-established civilian defense because the

National Guard receives federal funding and as a result

cannot be considered civilian. The fact that this agency

is comprised of civilians that militarily train once a

month and are only called up in times of emergency negates

his claim. The resulting implicature suggests the

illegitimacy of the National Guard and that the government

is illegally extending its authority which may effectively

instill a fear of the government into his audience.

Peculiarly, Klein tends to support his claims with

documents that exhibit his penchant for Quality maxim

violation. For example, he draws on the ACLU's assertion

that:

Bazookas, torpedoes, etc., might be needed,

under the Second Amendment, to protect the

people against a tyrannical state or national

government, but small arms are most assuredly

needed, permitted and required for individual

47 protection against everyday life and liberty

threats. (20)

His use of the ACLU's extreme reasoning that allows

individuals or groups access to Bazookas, torpedoes, etc.

to defend themselves against a "tyrannical" government

that may regulate, not ban, firearms violates the Quality

maxim. Individual security would be jeopardized, not

fortified, if untrained citizens or possibly unbalanced

persons are allowed access to such firepower. By using the

ACLU's maxim violation, Klein implies that citizens should

rely on an excess of lethal weaponry to protect themselves

against the government. His message may cause citizens to

arm themselves with these weapons and possibly bomb

federal facilities. In other words take the law into their

own hands to rebel against a "tyrannical" government as

Tim McVeigh did.

Klein concludes his argument with a summary and a

possible legal remedy to the Second Amendment rights

dilemma. He uses implicature in his question, "...why

can't we, the gun owners and gun buyers sue for

disparagements to our rights and well being?" (Klein 24),

he breaks the Quality maxim with the term

"disparagements." Regulation does not constitute a ban of

firearms. Also, many are accidentally maimed or murdered

48 through gun violence which does not contribute to their

well-being. He implies that gun-regulation is

unconstitutional and has imposed an economic burden on

gun-enthusiasts. His message may create a feeling of

resentment toward the government in the gun community.

Klein argues that the gun-regulation proponents:

...have made me feel like a criminal. Their

disparagements have portrayed me, because of my

interest in firearms, to be un-American—and I

hold being an American to the highest esteem.

(24)

The alienation and fear Klein exhibits in his rhetoric

appear to be recurring themes throughout many articles and

editorials that appear in this magazine.

Analysis of the Quantity Maxim

Violating the Quantity maxim (giving too much or too

little information) often obscures the topic of

conversation. For example, too much information clouds the

topic with irrelevant information, information the

audience may deem relevant. The use of value words also

has a similar effect in that they may change the

audience's perception from positive to negative or vice

49 versa. Too little information omits facts that may be

critical to the audience's understanding of an issue.

Heston excessively employs destructive value words

and omits important facts when discussing his opposition

to gun control. Some of the same examples from the last

section reflect his Quantity maxim-violations. For

example, his column, "From the Capitol: Lawsuits Against

Liberty: How Tobacco-Settlement Attorneys Threaten to

Bankrupt the American Gun Industry" (Heston 39) asserts

that the anti-tobacco lawsuits will eventually be applied

to and bankrupt the gun industry. Here, he misleads the

audience by omitting the information that the tobacco

industry lost a multimillion-dollar lawsuit because they

knowingly sold a hazardous product, then perjured

themselves, under oath, regarding this matter. His

employment of the unnecessary value words "liberty,"

"threaten" and "bankrupt," violates the Quantity maxim,

and bias his argument by implying that these .lawsuits may

damage the gun industry and conveys the message that our

freedom will be destroyed along with this industry.

Furthermore, Heston asserts that:

Bankrupt politicians seeking easy solutions to

crime are being seduced by ambulance-chasing

attorneys who promise them political cover, and

50 a cut of the proceeds, - from their next planned'

courtroom kill: the American firearms industry.

(39)

His use of the negative adjective "bankrupt" to describe

politicians filing these class action lawsuits for "...the

costs of firearm-related violence" (39) breaks the

Quantity maxim (too much information) because it

unnecessarily and negatively clouds the issue. Bankrupt

denotes financial or moral destitution. Thus, this

description casts a needless, contemptuous shroud upon

their character. The negative cliche' "ambulance-chasing"

implies that lawyers and reporters hope to make economic

gain from the grief of those involved in tragedy. His

employment of extraneous and destructive value words

derisively wraps the issue in too much information. These

Quantity maxim violations create an implicature that

affirms the gun community's integrity and suggests the

perverseness of gun-control proponents.

Similar to Heston, Klein creates implicature by

breaking the Quantity maxim in order to embed his values

into his audience. In "Second Amendment," he asserts that:

We, the constitutionally correct, the strict

constructionist, the followers of the founders

of this great nation, have always let our

51 position be known. [...] Our detractors, [...]

have for the most part, hemmed, hawed,

postulated, twisted, deferred, demurred and in

general, attacked us based on "feel good" and

political correctness. (20)

In this example, Klein fails to identify the "We" and what

credentials the "We" hold; both omissions thus violate the

Quantity maxim. Moreover, his use of the positive value

words of "constitutionally correct" "followers of the

founders" and "great nation" to describe Second Amendment

rights advocates creates the implicature that he-is

aligned with the positive image of patriotism and the 1776

American Revolution. In contrast, his use of destructive

value words "hemmed," "hawed," "postulated," "twisted,"

"deferred," "demurred," "attacked," and the sarcastic

"feel good," implies an instability in gun-control

opponents that suggests a shiftiness of character and

violates the Quantity maxim. Further, his message attempts

to instill treasonous shame in those who oppose his Second

Amendment Rights platform. This excess of negative and

destructive value words breaks the Quantity maxim with too

much information. The resulting implicatures may create a

sense of honor for the firearm enthusiast and unpatriotic

shame in the gun control proponent.

52 Klein continues to use implicature to create fear of

the government when he asks, "...must we commoners now

accept whatever a tyrannical state decrees because we have

no power to object to our state's rules?" (21). Klein

fails to mention that the "commoners" that created our

government only allowed white, landowning males to vote at

its inception and permitted slavery. This omission

violates the Quantity maxim and creates the implicature

that our founding fathers were egalitarian. In fact, they

were some of the richest and most selective■individuals in

the North American colonies. The effect of his message

suggests that as brothers we are in this battle against

gun-control together. His use of the unnecessary negative

adjective "tyrannical" also violates the Quantity maxim by

obscuring his opponents in the cloud of monarchial

totalitarianism. These maxim violations help achieve

Klein's implication that the government of the United

States is returning to the stern practices of the British

monarchy before the American Revolution and is

unconstitutional. The resulting message is that to revolt

for our rights, as our founding fathers did, is both

honorable, justifiable and patriotic.

53 Klein continues using implicature and Quantity maxim

violation throughout his article. He considers present-day

government agencies and acts of violence as king:

If we had a "'real' militia," [...] these "state

militia units" would have used their power to

protect their citizens from civil rights

violations such as unconstitutional taxes, laws

and edits, the withholding of federal highway

funds and such outrages as Waco and Ruby Ridge.

[...] Instead, these de facto "federal" guard

units [...] are under the complete control of

the federal government--a condition that would

horrify the founding fathers. (21)

Klein's value words "control" and "horrify" are extraneous

to the argument and indicate his aggressiveness in

communication. Klein utilizes implicature to suggest that

governmental militias are unconstitutional. Further, his

assertion regarding illegal taxes omits the fact that our

government is elected by the people, and the people will

vote elected officials out of office if they impose taxes

that are too burdensome for the populace to bear. Also,

most of these people have not violently revolted against

unfair taxation as they did in the Revolutionary War. In

addition, Klein fails to discuss that the victims in Waco

54 and Ruby Ridge violated federal law and refused to

surrender to the officers hired to enforce the law created

by a representative government. Consequently, Klein breaks

the Quantity maxim, implying that our government is

illegal. He may thus instill a sense of fear and

alienation toward the government in his audience.

Klein continues violating the Quantity maxim arguing

that:

Government' s;well-established civilian defense

role is that of protection against foreign

invasion, keeping order and seeing that the

people's constitutional rights are not violated

by its agents, employees and officials. (23)

Here Klein implies that the government is not fulfilling

its role and violates civilian rights. Additionally, he

fails to recognize that currently we have many civilian

and military agencies and laws to protect citizens from

invasion, to protect their rights, and to keep order. As a

consequence, he violates the Quantity maxim. The resulting

implicature is that our government does not fulfill the

founding father's original plan, suggesting that it has

illegitimately seized more power than the Constitution

allows and has become oppressive.

55 Similar to Klein, Grover violates the- Quantity maxim

to create a sense of danger in the audience in "Personal

Security; Identity Theft." Grover suggests that we should

be vigilant at all times and fear for our personal

security and economic health. He details how thieves

obtain your personal information and create credit

accounts in your name, accounts that are sent to the

thief's address without your knowledge. He continues,

claiming that "In a few cases, some of the criminals had

legally changed their names to assume the identity of

their victims" (Grover 12). According to Grover, if this

happens, even if you report it to the police, you still

will be hounded by creditors that employ late night phone

calls and threatening letters to obtain monies due them in

spite of the fact you did not incur the bill; you will

become one of a growing number of the victimized by fraud.

Grover describes this crime as insidious, because you

usually are exploited for a period of time before

receiving the bills. Grover explains that, "Some never did

recover losing retirement money, college funds and other

treasured nest eggs" (12).

However, Grover fails to discuss the actual location,

economic status, or the percent of the population that

suffer identity loss, thus breaking the Quantity maxim

56 with too little information. Grover's use of implicature

is that we live in a dangerous world and must be

constantly aware of the hazards that may find us. His

defensive tone may indicate his hostile tendencies in

communication. Grover attempts to instill his fear into

the audience by omitting pertinent facts, thereby making

it appear that identity theft is far more prevalent than

it may actually be.

In "Jungle Rules," Grover's fearful tone continues.

Grover suggests that there are many dangerous areas in the

world for members of the white race. His rules are

previously cited on page forty-two. This example

illustrates that maxim violations often overlap one

another. In chapter one, this study demonstrates how

"Jungle Rules" violates the Quality maxim. This chapter

will illustrate how this list violates Quantity maxims in

that Grover fails to identify the areas that may be

hazardous to your health if you are white. His statement

regarding "bad guys," which does not identify the "bad"

guy, again breaks the Quantity maxim with too little

information. His maxim breaking creates an implicature

that racism against whites exists in many parts of the

world. He insinuates that if you are white you must be

aware of these unspecified areas.

57 Analysis of the Manner Maxim

Interestingly, this research found that in contrast

to the fifty-nine Quality and Quantity maxim violations,

Heston, Grover and Klein violate the Manner and Relation

maxims seventeen times. Grice incorporated four submaxims

under Manner:

1. Be perspicuous or easily understood.

2. Avoid ambiguity.

3. Be brief.

4. Be orderly.

These rules mirror Grice's concept of how individuals

conduct their communication (Grice Studies 27).

Grover breaks the Manner maxim, in his recurring

column, "Personal Security: Hot Spot Hubris," with the

following contradictory lines:

People the world over are generally good and

will leave you alone. [...] You may assume

locals will tell you if there's any trouble. No,

they won't. (10)

Grover's wording is too general and contradictory for

clarity. How can people (the mass of ordinary persons) be

generally good and the locals (pertaining to a local

person) not warn you of possible danger? Therefore, Grover

breaks the Manner maxim of clarity because the mass of

58 people would include locals . Grover' s'•mixed messages imply

that, when traveling, individuals must be on guard instead

of relaxing, and relaxing is often the purpose of travel.

This message may reveal his xenophobia, a fear he tries to

cultivate in his audience. Additionally, it betrays

aggressive and possibly paranoid tendencies in his written

communication.

Klein violates the Manner maxim five times in his

freelance contribution by adopting double talk in his

claim which usually results in ambiguity. He argues that

gun enthusiasts could use the Ninth Amendment to save the

II Amendment. The Ninth Amendment reads:

Regarding rights not enumerated. The

enumeration in the Constitution of certain

rights shall not be construed to deny or

disparage others retained by the people, (qtd.

in Baldwin and Kelley Survey 488)

Klein interprets the Ninth Amendment's meaning

arguing that citizens shall not be deprived of their

rights simply because these rights are not mentioned in

the Constitution. He continues:

...if the court rules that the Second is not a

direct and individual right then they cannot

deny the Ninth Amendment's indirect right to

59 secure our individual unenumerated rights.

(Klein 22)

Klein supports his claim with the ruling, "...the right to

bear arms is not left to the vagaries of the Ninth

Amendment disputes at all" (San Diego County Gun Rights

Committee v. Janet Reno). Here, Klein contradicts himself

and violates the Manner maxim. This ruling on the Ninth

Amendment excludes, not includes, the Second Amendment in

that the Second clearly states citizens have the right to

bear arms. This contrasts with his article's title "Save

the Second Amendment with the Ninth." This maxim violation

immerses his argument in a smokescreen of constitutionally

clouded communication. The resulting implicature is that

he is an authority on the Constitution and the resulting

message legalizes his claim.

Klein continues to violate the Manner maxim and uses

implicature to demonstrate his and other gun owners' noble

character. He follows with the positive comments, "We, the

American gun owners, are a very trusting and agreeable mix

of civilians" (22). This violates the Manner maxim of

clarity in that he follows with:

Must we commoners now accept whatever a

tyrannical state decrees [...] Outrages [such]

as Waco and Ruby Ridge [...] defacto "federal"

60 guard units [. . . ] unconstitutional taxes [ . . . ]

pseudo scholars and alleged learned jurists

[...] This negative umbrella, this illegal

conspiracy perpetuated by ABC, NBC, CBS, TBS,

Gannett. (Klein 21-25)

This rhetoric does not reflect the language of a trusting

and agreeable person. In fact, these words may reveal a

person of aggressive communicative tendencies and

extremes.

Klein continues violating the Manner maxim in his

argument regarding Second Amendment rights. He states

that:

Government's well-established civilian defense

role is that of protection against foreign

invasion, keeping order and seeing that the

people's constitutional rights are not violated

by its agents, employees and officials. (23)

He concludes that the government violates the Ninth

Amendment with gun regulation because it denies its

citizens the right to defend themselves, and therefore,

the government is unconstitutional. Klein contradicts

himself and oversimplifies the complex nature of internal

and external political affairs. First, according to him we

do not have a well-established civilian defense because

61 the National Guard receives federal funding. The fact that

this agency is comprised of civilians that militarily

train once a month and are only called up in times of

emergency negates his claim that this institution is not a

civilian defense force; he thus violates the Manner maxim.

The resulting implicature suggests the illegitimacy of the

National Guard and that gun control strips citizens of the

ability to defend themselves against a tyrannical

government.

Klein again connects to the English colonial rule in

North America and further violates the Manner maxim by

arguing:

If one has a right to life but is denied a means

(use of arms) to secure this right, then the

right to life Is disparaged (lessened) and not a

guaranteed right to life at all, and if we have

no rights we are mere subjects of the government

such as the colonists were to the King of

England, circa 1775. (24)

The fact is that firearm regulation does not prohibit

owning firearms. The regulation and licensing of

automobiles, dogs, and businesses, has not impeded

individuals from purchasing them. Again, this violates the

Manner maxim in that he appears to define the. Second

62 Amendment's word impede as prohibition. This implicature

suggests that gun regulation deprives citizens of their

right to personal security. The resulting message attempts

to create fear of government regulation.

Analysis of the Relation Maxim

Grice's theory of Conversational Implicature claims

that in communication you must be relevant or your

audience may misunderstand the pertinent information. If a

speaker digresses into irrelevant information, the

audience may conclude that the divergent information is

the topic at hand. For example, if you engage in a

conversation regarding animal rights it may be unwise to

bring the unrelated topic of Second Amendment rights into

the discussion, as this may create confusion in your

audience.

In Heston's article "The Cost of Freedom-and the

Price of Silence: Defending the Second Amendment is

Tantamount to Swimming in a Shark-Infested Pool-It's Not

for the Faint of Heart" (Heston 34), Heston attempts to

relate two unrelated topics: swimming with sharks and

defending Second Amendment rights. Heston utilizes

implicature to portray himself as a victim of the

gun-control shark and in doing so violates the Relation

63 maxim. Swimming in a shark tank is not the same as

advocating Second Amendment rights. The former could be

hazardous to your physical well-being; the latter may

subject you to indignity. This maxim violation results in

the implicature that promoting Second Amendment rights is

dangerous and that, in spite of the danger, Heston is

courageous enough to fight for these rights.

Heston continues to violate the Relation maxim with

negative metaphoric language arguing that:

We've all seen the media demonize someone by

attacking his beliefs. When attacking an idea

directly won't work, the media target the

messenger instead. In that sense, I suppose,

I've served as a whipping boy for the Second

Amendment recently. In their fever to discredit

the NRA and demonize our defense of the right to

keep and bear arms, the media have, [...] called

me everything from "ridiculous" and duped to a

brain-injured, senile, crazy old man. (34)

The adjectives "ridiculous" "duped" "brain-injured"

"senile" and "crazy old man" do not demonize Heston. To

demonize is to make someone into a demon or devil-someone

evil. The adjectives that Heston claims the media applies

denote wrong-headed, not Satanic thinking. Heston's claim

64 fails to demonstrate a relationship between demon and

wrongheadedness and suggests that the media have unfairly-

portrayed him. Additionally, the term "whipping-boy" fails

to relate to the advocation of gun-control. Historically,

a whipping boy was reared in the same manner as a prince

and received physical punishment for the prince's

misconduct. Heston's maxim violations imply that he is

being whipped for defending the Second Amendment, this

sends a message of his martyrdom.

Heston continues using negative, metaphoric language

that fails to relate to the topic. He targets the media

claiming:

60 Minutes host Mike Wallace was never anything

but polite in his questioning. Yet behind the

smiles and manners, all the while he's

interviewing you, you know he's doing his best

to ambush you. It's SWAT-team journalism. (34)

Here, Heston attempts to align the media with an

aggressive military-type police force specializing in the

arrest and control violent perpetrators. The media may

often exhibit aggressive language, but they do not use

firearms in the course of their work as the Swat-team

does.

65 Heston continues violating the Relation maxim and

uses implicature to indicate "God" is on his side. He

argues that:

To think that something as sacred as the Second

Amendment could be subject to the pipe dreams of

pop-culture "philosophers," and ignorance of

newscast know-it-alls and the squishy morality

of a Clintonian world. (34)

Here, Heston indulges in destructive words he complained

about in "Shark Tank." The negative nouns "pipe dreams,"

"pop-culture philosophers," "know-it-all" and "squishy

morality" do not directly relate to the argument

surrounding Second Amendment rights. Here he creates

implicature suggesting that gun control proponents are

capricious and indecent, resulting in the message that

they lack credibility.

Heston continues to violate the Relation maxim in his

article "Lawsuits Against Liberty: How Tobacco-Settlement

Attorneys Threaten to Bankrupt the American Gun Industry."

Heston argues that class-action, lawsuit lawyers are "Like

a pack of jackals running down a deer" (40). In this

statement, he characterizes these lawyers as the most

unsavory of predators hunting the Bambi-like gun

manufacturers. His interjection of this simile does not

66 relate to the lawsuit debate and draws upon value words to

relay destructive imagery. The resulting implicature

suggests the innocence of gun manufacturers and the

bestiality of gun-regulation.

Heston continues violating the Relation maxim in

"Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics: How Media Polls

Misrepresent details the bias that exists in polls with

the example "Please answer 'yes' or 'no.' Have you stopped

beating your wife yet?"(45) to make his point. This

example demonstrates the unreliability of polls. His

argument again digresses into unrelated topics. He claims

that:

If there's anything that's been revealed about

the American people's view of gun control over

the decades it's a kind of schizophrenic

desperation. (46)

Here he implies that citizens of the United States have

contradictory views on this issue. In reality,

schizophrenic views would be "characterized by

indifference, withdrawal, hallucinations and delusions of

persecution and omnipotence" (The American Heritage

Dictionary 1303). This is not contradictory in nature,

does not relate to gun control and violates the Relation

maxim. His maxim-breaking creates an implicature that our

67 society is misled by the polls, media, and generally,

those who petition for gun regulation. The message is: do

not believe the polls and media.

Similar to Heston, Klein periodically attempts to

create comparisons between unrelated topics. In "Second

Amendment, The Other Right to Keep and Bear Arms" Klein

argues:

...must we commoners now accept whatever a

tyrannical state decrees because we have no

power to object to our state's rules? (Klein 21)

Klein attempts to compare the commoners of 1770's to

present day citizens that live in the democratic United

States of America. However, the two do not relate in time

or circumstance. The former lived in a monarchy with no

representation in Parliament. The latter live in a

representative government, not in an arbitrary and

tyrannical state. By violating the Relation maxim, he

implies that gun control will, in effect, turn the United

States of America into a totalitarian state.

Furthermore, Klein violates the Relation maxim when

he implies that the implementation of gun-control would

cause the price of owning a firearm to be prohibitive for

the lower and working classes. Klein asserts:

68 ...if you are a judge who has citizen-paid

personal police protection and enough salary to

afford to live and work in a crime-free

neighborhood, you're no better than we are. Just

because we, the common citizens, are void of

your "perks" you have no right to rule against

our means to seek constitutionally allowed

protection for ourselves. (22)

This suggests that an affluent judge assumes him or

herself to be "better" than those less affluent does not

relate to the topic of gun-regulation. This violation

results in the implicature that suggests gun control

judges can and do hire protection. This implication

results in the message that gun-regulation judges do not

consider the common citizen capable or sensible enough to

know how to use firearms. Additionally, Klein's assertion

that judges with "perks" do not have the right to prevent

the gun community from owning a firearm relates to

prevention not regulation.

In "Personal Security: Hot spot Hubris" Grover

violates the Relation maxim on only two occasions. First,

he argues that:

...failure to ask yourself, "What will I do

should some of these 'bad' people happen on to

69 me?" is negligent. It is analogous to going to

the North Pole without proper gear. (10)

An individual may be assaulted by the rugged terrain and

weather of the North Pole, but this is not the same as

being attacked by a "bad" person. By connecting these

unrelated events, Grover implies that we must always

exercise caution, which results in his message that we

live in a hostile world and must protect ourselves.

Grover's second violation of the Relation maxim

appears as he asserts, "...depending on your ethnic

background, some places are okay-for you to be' and other

places just aren't" (10). An individual's ethnic

background does not dictate what areas are safe and what

areas are not. For example, the history of civil wars,

brother against brother, demonstrate the frequent '

irrelevance of ethnicity to safety. That is, ethnicity and

safety do not relate. This maxim violation results'in an

implicature that areas dominated by individuals of color

pose a threat to whites. The resulting xenophobic message

is that whites should fear people of color. This

implicature may reveal Grover's underlying xenophobic

attitudes.

70 CHAPTER FIVE

DISCUSSION

The findings of this study show how three Guns & Ammo

writers violate maxims and create implicature. In so

doing, they strengthen their message to validate their

claims and persuade their audience. Heston, Grover and

Klein's maxim violations create implicatures that reveal

an aggressive style in written communication.

Heston, Grover and Klein's writings exhibit combative

language and tone. Similar to Chen's conclusions regarding

Juror Three in Twelve Angry Men, this analysis found that

approximately 20 of the contributors to Guns & Ammo,

including Heston, Grover and Klein, exhibit the

communicative traits of intolerance, rudeness and anger

directed toward individuals or groups with opposing

opinions. These three contributors' writings violate the

speech maxims and create implicatures to intimidate,

manipulate and convince their audience that gun regulation

will eventually diminish most Constitutional rights. Smith

found that weight-loss advertisers use implicature to

obscure their claims. In contrast, Heston and Klein openly

declare their opposition to firearm regulation. Grover

argues that we live in a dangerous world. All three often

71 cloud their claims with untruthfulness, needless value

words, Omissions, contradictions and unrelated

information. These contributors attempt to persuade their

audience into accepting their arguments and employ

implicature to suggest that supporting gun control is

tantamount to treason. Several psycholinguistic studies

conducted by Deborah A. Kashy and Bella M. DePaulo, Robert

M. Krauss & Susan R. Fussell, R. Christie, F.L. Geis & T.

Falbo, Kari Edwards & Edward E. Smith, J. Howard, & M.

Rothbart, T. Pyszczynski & J. Greenberg, H. Tajfel & J. C.

Turner may shed light on the reasons behind and the

effects of Heston, Grover and Klein's aggressive

tendencies in written communication.

Heston, Grover and Klein share the common expectation

that their audience agrees with their belief that gun

regulation is unconstitutional. To add strength to their

argument regarding the dangers of gun control they

frequently violate the speech maxims creating implicatures

to shed an attractive light on themselves and disparage

gun control proponents. Similar to Grice's Cooperative

Principle of discourse, Krauss and Fussell found that

"Much social behavior is predicated upon assumptions an

actor makes about the knowledge, beliefs, and motives of

others" (Krauss & Fussell 2), and that communication is

72 created for a particular audience for it to be understood

(2). Heston, Grover and Klein's claims are directed at the

gun owning audience, and they may anticipate that their

arguments will instill a fear for their Constitutional

rights in that audience.

Quality Maxim Violations

The frequency of Heston, Grover and Klein's maxim

violations may reveal their aggressive tendencies in

written communication when opposed. Table 1 shows that the

authors violate the Quality (truthfulness) and Quantity

(too little or too much information) maxims with more

frequency than the Manner and Relation maxims. Grice did

not delve into personality and implicature, but Kashy and

DePaulo conducted a study titled "Who Lies" to discover 1)

Who frequently lied? 2) Why did they lie? 3) Did they

differ from those who seldom lied? 4) If there is a

mendacious personality type? (Kashy and DePaulo 1037) .

They found:

People who told more lies were more

manipulative, more concerned with

self-presentation, and more sociable. People who

told fewer lies were more highly socialized and

73 reported higher quality same-sex relationships.

(1037)

Additionally, they found that those who infrequently lie

did so out of the need fo.r politeness and that responsible

individuals were less likely to lie (Kashy and Depaulo

1050). They support their conclusion with Christie, Geis

and Falbo's findings that liars, "...will lie, cheat, and

manipulate others to get what they want" (qtd. in Kashy &

De Paulo 1038). Two linguistic studies, by Chen and Smith,

came to like conclusions that individuals who often

violate maxims do so for self-serving purposes. The number

of Quality maxim violations in this small sample might

suggest that Heston, Grover and Klein's writings distort

facts. These distortions create implicatures that attempt

to embed fear of gun control into their audience and may

manipulate that audience into believing that they might

lose the "Right to Bear Arms" (qtd. in Baldwin and Kelley

Survey 487). Their use of destructive value words to

belittle their opponents are untruthful, revealing that

they will resort to writings that denigrate their

opponents. These men exhibit hostile tendencies in

communication when challenged in order to achieve their

goal of maintaining the unrestricted right to own and

shoot firearms.

7 4 Quantity Maxim Violations

Heston, Grover and Klein frequently break the

Quantity maxim by employing unessential value words to

invoke distrust for the United States and gun control in

the audience. These violations suggest that gun-regulation

may threaten their prior beliefs and thus, their

self-esteem. For example, these writers utilize alarming

words (e.g., predators, prey, tyranny, jackals) to

strengthen the hostile tone of their texts and imply that

if you do not own a firearm, you will become the prey of

predators and a tyrannical government. Individuals

generally do not resort to negative metaphors, similes and

adjectives to describe individuals they admire and

respect. This implicature may reveal that the writers'

feel threatened and resort to aggressive writing to

protect themselves from the threat of gun regulation.

Heston's, Grover's and Klein's use of unnecessary

destructive and positive language, a Quantity maxim

violation may be related to the fact that their writings

revolve around social issues, issues that they feel so

strongly about that they utilize unnecessary language to

denigrate the character of their opponents. Krauss and

Fussell's analysis "Perspective-Taking in Communication;

Representation of Others' Knowledge in Reference" found

75 that- social messages tended to be twice as long as

nonsocial messages (6). Krauss and Fussell's research may

partially explain why Heston's, Grover's and Klein's

writings employ excessive, language in their writings.

Heston's, Grover's and Klein's texts exhibit negative

attitudes toward the "out-group" of gun control

proponents. That is, Heston, Grover and Klein use the

language of gun enthusiasts to portray them as patriotic

and defame their opposition. Consequently, they frequently

violate the Quantity maxims. For example, Heston describes

tobacco/gun control attorneys as ambulance chasing. Both

of which violate the Quality and Quantity maxims. Grover

explains that your ethnicity and location determine your

safety. In other words, Grover considers certain ethnic

groups as the out-group and a possible threat to his

group's safety. He fails to name the out-groups or their

locations, a violation of the Quantity maxim. Klein's

arguments regarding unconstitutional taxes, state militias

and gun control implies that the government of the United

States is illegal. Consequently, he violates the Quality

maxim with distortion and Quantity maxim with excessive

language. Anne Maass, Angela Milesi, Silvia Zabbini, and

Dagmar Stahlberg's research "Linguistic Intergroup Bias:

Differential Expectancies or In-Group Protection?" found

76 that language may maintain a group's belief system. Their

study incorporated H. Tajfel and J.C. Turner's social

identity theory. This theory revolves around the idea that

intergroups tend to characterize its members in a positive

light while denigrating the outgroup. The analysis found

that "...competing social groups share stereotypic

beliefs" (qtd. in Maass 117). Specifically, Maass found

that the competing groups of hunters and environmentalists

could not find "...a single positive quality in the

opposing group" (Maass 118). Similarly, Howard and

Rothbart found that individuals expect favorable conduct

from their group and negative behavior from the outgroup

(qtd. in Maass 117). This study may shed light on

Heston's, Grover's and Klein's unnecessary language that

violate the Quantity maxims and resulting implicatures.

Grover may believe that people of color or ethnic

background, the out-group, pose a threat to whites. His

violations of the Quantity maxim might possibly reveal a

vigilant individual who obscures reality in a smokescreen

of unnecessary language while omitting important facts.

Thus, his words create implicatures that may terrorize his

armed audience. Kari Edwards and Edward Smith's study, "A

Disconfirmation Bias in the Evaluation of Arguments"

discuss behavior when prior beliefs are challenged.

77 Edwards and Smith found "...that individuals are motivated

to defend their beliefs, not why they are [...] Thus, when

one looks at the details or search for disconfirming

evidence, irrationalities begin to surface" (.19-22) .

Grover may be exhibiting some irrationalities through his

word choice of predators, prey.

The Constitution represents one facet of Heston and

Klein's prior beliefs and may consider gun regulation as a

personal threat. In response to this danger they violate

the maxims creating implicatures that they hope will

render gun-regulation impotent. Five of the texts analyzed

violate the Quantity maxim with destructive value words

and often create implications that denigrate the character

of people whom they feel threatened by. Edwards and

Smith's analysis incorporated Pyszczynski and Greenberg

conclusion that:

When an event is ego relevant, consideration of

an undesirable hypothesis [...] which in turn

motivates the person to process information in

such a way as to provide evidence for a more

palatable alternative hypothesis, (qtd. in

Edwards and Smith 21)

78 Heston and Klein appear to have come to the less damaging

conclusion that gun-control is unconstitutional and that

its advocates are unpatriotic.

Manner Maxim Violations

Although the Manner maxim violations occur only five

times in these six texts, they nonetheless had important

effects. Heston never violates this maxim. Why did Grover

and Klein violate the Manner maxim? This research suggests

that Grover's perception of a hostile world and possible

xenophobia do not reflect clarity of thought. Similarly,

Klein's strong emotions regarding the Second Amendment

rights may impair his logic. That is, he never really

gives careful consideration to the arguments for gun

control. Klein encounters difficulty in clearly

formulating his claim and, instead of "ducking the topic,"

as is often the case with Manner maxim violations, he

blurs the issue with unclear legal language.

Relation Maxim Violations

This analysis found that much of the information in

these Guns & Ammo articles attempts to relate

gun-regulation to hazardous creatures, areas or

unpatriotic behavior. Thus, they often make these

irrelevant comparisons appear related to their arguments.

79 A 1982 study conducted by Norbert Schwartz, Fritz Strack,

Denis Hilton and Gabi Naderer, "Base Rates,

Representativeness, and the Logic of Conversation: The

Contextual Relevance of 'Irrelevant' Information," found

that in communication the audience often will incorporate

irrelevant discourse information as relative information.

They found that the audience often inferred the speaker's

intent instead of what was actually spoken. In other

words, in a social context they heard what they thought

the speaker wanted them to hear instead of what was

actually said. Thus, Heston, Grover and Klein's use of

irrelevant words may be deemed.relevant by Guns & Ammo's

audience.

Comments

A final word regarding the speech maxims,

implicature, and the firearms issue. Considering the

change in the language of this magazine from 1962 to 1999,

the Second Amendment rights issue has become severe. In

1962 the rhetoric in Guns & Ammo seldom violates the

speech maxims, a sharp contrast to 1999. This study found

that the contributors often violate the maxims to create

positive implicature regarding gun enthusiasts and

80 destructive implicature regarding gun regulation. These

implicatures reveal that they feel threatened.

In contrast, I have never owned a firearm in spite of

the fact that I have twice been threatened with a handgun.

Additionally, I have only come into contact with firearm

enthusiasts in the last eleven years. This study stemmed

from my desire to better understand them through language.

The firearm enthusiasts I have come into contact with are

conservative and quiet. They seldom indulge in destructive

language and generally "opt out" of conversations that run

contrary to their beliefs. In other words they, "Walk

Softly, But Carry" (Berry). The divisive issue of gun

control has major societal repercussions which partially

explains Heston, Grover and Klein's excessive use of

positive and negative words. Many believe that there is a

very real conflict between the issues of safety and

freedom. For example, with respect to safety, 30,000 die

each year by firearms, making them the second leading

cause of death in the United States. For every person that

kills another in self-defense, there is one accidental

death, five murders and thirty-seven suicides by firearms.

It is twelve times more often that a friend or family

member will be shot and killed than an intruder

(Addressing Violence In Oklahoma 1) . Nearly 8-00

81 individuals die annually as a result of a child shooting a

gun. The approximate cost for firearm related injuries in

1995 was $4 billion. Eighty percent of these expenses rest

on the taxpayer's shoulders (State Action 1). The number

of incidents of children and their friends that have been

accidentally killed or maimed by firearms grows because

precautions are not taken by many gun owners. Sometimes,

firearms of inferior quality misfire resulting in the

killing or maiming the shooter. Regulation in the form of

background checks and instruction in the use and storage

of firearms may diminish some of the anguish, something

that most of my gun enthusiast acquaintances do not

oppose.

In contrast to the safety arguments regarding guns.

Second Amendment rights advocates voice concerns regarding

freedom. At times, these concerns become violent. Heston,

Grover and Klein's language may fuel fear in their

audience. In light of Tim McVeigh's execution for

implementing what he considered a justifiable war against

the United States infringement on his Constitutional

rights, Heston's, Grover's and Klein's language may be

irresponsible. Guns & Ammo's 1999 content demonstrates

that only 20 of the contributors exhibit extreme language

use which leads me to believe that this is a limited, but

82 significant number of citizens. Guns & Ammo's circulation

of 429,225 in the U.S. and 1,916 in Canada reveals only a

fraction of the numbers. There are many other firearm

publications such as HUNTING, GUNS & GEAR, GUNS, HANDGUNS,

SHOOT and numerous firearm owners that do not subscribe to

any firearm publications. These are citizens who claim

they are entitled to their rights guaranteed under the

Constitution of the United States which declares that:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the

security of a free State, the right of the

people to keep and bear arms, shall not be

infringed, (qtd. in Baldwin and Kelley Survey

487)

To infringe means to "break, impair, violate [ . . . ] fail to

observe the terms of" (The American Heritage Dictionary

750) . To regulate is to "control, direct, or .govern

according to rule [...] to adjust to a particular standard

[...] to make uniform, methodical, orderly, etc." (1225).

I believe this is where the Second Amendment advocates

misinterpret the law. To regulate does not prohibit

citizens from owning and shooting firearms; rather it

adjusts this right to present day society in the form of

training in safety and background checks to somewhat

increase security in our society.

83 WORKS CITED

Addressing Violence In Oklahoma. 20 May 2001

Chttp://www.health.state.ok.us/program/injury/violence/

firearmv.html>.

Anderson, K.B. Letter. "Keep and Bear Arms" Guns & Ammo

Jan. 1970 : 10.

Baldwin, Leiand D., and Robert Kelley. Survey of American

History. 2nd. ed. New York: American Book Company,

1967 .

Barlow, Roger. "Varmint Guns Are Single Shots!" Guns &

Ammo June 1962: 18-23.

Berry, Steve. "Walk Softly, but Carry" Los Angeles Times

Magazine. 18 Nov. 2001.

Chen, Rong. "Conversational Implicature and

Characterization in Reginald Rose's Twelve Angry

Men." San Bernardino: n.p. n.d.: 31-47.

Chernoff, Arnold. "Those Yankee Pepperboxes" Guns & Ammo

June 1962: 34-37.

"Commoner." Def. The American Heritage Dictionary of the

English Language. New College Edition. 1976.

Crane, Philip M. Letter. "Set the Record Straight." Guns &

Ammo Jan. 1980: 8.

84 Encyclopedia of World Problems and Human Potential. Human

Values Project. 28 Aug. 2000

.

Edwards, Kari. Edward E. Smith. "A Disconfirmation Bias in

the Evaluation of Arguments." Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology 71:1 (1996) : 5-24.

Gampetro, Jim. Letter. Guns & Ammo December 1998: 7.

Gauker, Christopher. "Grice, Herbert Paul" Dictionary of

Philosophy of Mind. 16 Aug. 2001

.

Grice, H.Paul. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard UP. 1989.

Grover, Jim. "Personal Security: The Biggest Steal." Guns

& Ammo Jan. 1999: 12.

Grover, Jim. "Personal Security: Hot Spot Hubris." Guns &

Ammo April 1999: 10.

Hargrove, Alien. "How the Press Can 'Lie' About Guns:

'Erroneous Conclusions of Unqualified "Experts" Are

Quoted As News, but Accepted As Fact." Guns & Ammo

Jan. 1970: 24-25.

85 Heston, Charlton. "From the Capitol: The Cost of Freedom--

and the Price of Silence: Defending the Second

Amendment Is Tantamount to Swimming in a

Shark-Infested Pool-It's Not for the Faint of Heart."

Guns & Ammo Jan. 1999: 34.

--. "From the Capitol: Lawsuits Against Liberty: How

Tobacco-Settlement Attorneys Threaten to Bankrupt the

American Gun Industry." Guns & Ammo June 1999: 39-40.

--. "From the Capitol: Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics: How

Media Polls Misrepresent Public Opinion and Pervert

National Debate." Guns & Ammo June 1999: 45-46.

Home, E.W. Letter. "The Clarity of the Constitution" Guns

& Ammo Jan. 1970: 10.

"Infringe." Def. The American Heritage Dictionary of the

English Language. New College Edition. 1-976.

Kashy, Deborah A. Bella M. DePaulo. "Who Lies?" Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology 70:5 (1996):

1037-51.

Keith , Elmer. "Gunnotes." Guns & Ammo June 1962:14-16.

Klein , Chuck, "Second Amendment: Fight for Your Firearms

Freedom! The Other Right to Keep and Bear Arms: Use

the Ninth Amendment to Save the Second." Guns & Ammo

Dec. 1999: 20-23.

86 Krauss, Robert M. and Susan R. Fussell.

"Perspective-Taking in Communication: Representation

of Others' Knowledge in Reference." Social Cognition.

9:1 (1991) 2-24.

Laska, Paul R. Letter. "The Gun Jerk" Guns & Ammo Jan.

1970: 10.

Maass, Anne, Angela Milesi, and Silvia Zabbini; Dagmar

Stahlberg. "Linguistic Intergroup Bias: Differential

Expectancies or In-Group Protection?" Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology 68 : 1 (1995) :

116-26.

Neal, Bob. "Washington Report: Buying a New Gun? It Isn't

Tough Yet...... but It Could Be!" Guns & Ammo Jan.

1970: 8-9.

Oliver, James. "Washington Report." Guns & Ammo Jan. 1980:

6+.

Osborn, Don. "Pinwheels and Flyers" Editorial. Guns & Ammo

June 1962: 8.

Ray, Richard J.M. Letter. Guns & Ammo June 1962: 6. San

Diego County Gun Rights Committee v. Janet Reno.

98f.3D 1121 CA Ninth Cir. 1996. Rpt. in Guns & Ammo

Dec.1999:22.

"Regulate." Def. The American Heritage Dictionary of the

English Language. New College Edition. 1976.

87 Rustad, Jerry. Pinwheels and Flyers" Letter. Guns & Ammo

June 1962: 8.

Schafer, John D. Letter. "Don't Blame Bureaucrats!" Guns &

Ammo Jan. 1980: 8.

"Schizophrenia." Def. The American Heritage Dictionary of

the English Language. New College Edition. 1976.

Schwarz, Norbert, Fritz Strack, Denis Hilton, Gabi

Naderer. "Base Rates, Representativeness, and the

Logic of Conversation: The Contextual Relevance of

"Irrelevant" Information." Social Cognition. 9:1

(1991) : 67-84.

"Shrewd." Def. The American Heritage Dictionary of the

English Language. New College Edition. 1976.

Smith, Karen A. Dancing on the Edge of Truth: A Study of

Weight-loss Advertising and Implication. Thesis.

California State U San Bernardino, 1977.

State Action Women & A Challenge to Secure America's

Economic Future. Solutions for the New Economy:

Building Blocks for a Strong and Healthy Economy,

Families and Communities. Preventing Gun Violence.

Chttp://www.stateaction.org/programs/women/challenge2000/

report/gunviolence.cfm>.

Stover, Leon. Robert A. Heinlein. Boston: Twayne

Publishers, 1987.

88 Studies in- Machiavellianism. Ed. R. Christie and F.L.

Geis. New York: AP, 1970. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology 70:5 (1996): 1038.

"Tyrannical." Def. The American Heritage Dictionary of the

English Language. New College Edition. 1976.

89